MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470086597 · doi:10.1118/1.4957092

SU‐G‐TeP3‐12: Retrospective Assessment of R2star Using Ultra‐High Field MRI in a Rodent Model of Radiation Necrosis

2016· article· en· W2470086597 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Guy Belliveau, Ravi S. Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectron Spin Resonance Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNecrosisNuclear medicineMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingGadoliniumIrradiationRadiation therapyRadiologyPathologyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To establish a quantitative MRI method that would be capable of predicting radiation necrosis without using a contrast agent. Methods: Healthy male Fischer 344 rats were irradiated using an animal irradiator capable of delivering 2.3 Gy/min with a kVp of 225 V. A dose of 40 Gy was given to half the brain in a single session. Rats were scanned using a 9.4 T animal MRI before irradiation and every two weeks following radiation until either necrosis developed or they were sacrificed for health reasons. A multi‐echo gradient‐echo sequence was acquired at every time point and the apparent transverse relaxation rate R 2 * was calculated based on the measured signal decay. At the last time point, an ROI mask with an R 2 * value of greater than 45 s −1 was applied in the area of the external and internal capsule where radiation necrosis was confirmed. A retrospective analysis was performed to determine whether R 2 * values would be able to predict where radiation necrosis would occur. Results: Radiation necrosis was morphologically visible between weeks 22–24 following treatment. Gadolinium MRI and histology confirmed radiation necrosis in the area of MRI enhancement. Our data suggests that there is a trend towards significance in the lesion as early as 12 weeks prior to morphological changes on MRI with significance occurring 6 weeks prior (p≤0.05, p≤0.01 at week 24). Measurements of the R 2 * in the hippocampus did not show any significant difference; however, there are areas of visible R 2 * change within sub‐hippocampal regions. Conclusion: R 2 * is a promising method that could be able to predict an underlying disease process that occurs prior to radiation necrosis. The constant increase in R 2 * values suggests a possible neuroinflammatory mechanism rather than an acute vascular event where R 2 * would tend to decrease in the area.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicElectron Spin Resonance StudiesFrench-language works237,207